![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On 4/25/08, Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru> wrote: > Hi. > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 02:20:47PM -0400, Ulrich Drepper (drepper@redhat.com) wrote: > > The code changes are really minimal. And don't get too hung up on the > > internal name of the syscall. I think accept4 is more desriptive than > > paccept since a) suffixes more easily indicate derived functionality > > and b) the 4 actually indicates to the initiated what has changed. > > If there are good reasons otherwise the userlevel interface can still > > be something completely different. > > > What about sigset there too? Right. That was what I was understanding that Alan referred to when he was talking about paccept() | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2008-04-25 08:45 [W:0.929 / U:0.020 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||